Climate Change is an issue that does not seem sufficiently evident to produce a consensus, because - it seems - the science it involves is mostly out of reach for the average person, so that in the end the various opinions seem to all come down to who is to be believed on the issue.

But it seems to me that there are other even more direct threats to the environment that we can see here and now, that should therefore produce a consensus around the idea that humans are having a catastrophic influence over the environment.

The most prominent example of such threats is the mass extinction of animal life that we are witnessing. All it takes to acknowledge this is to look at the appallingly dwindling animal populations. Wildlife, insects, fish, ocean dead zones... There is also the issue of mass pollution for example based on the use of plastics, with the garbage patch in the Pacific for example.

When I raised these issues among climate change deniers, they had no other fallback argument than denying that these issues even matter in the first place. But I think this was still a progress because it clarified the issue and shifted the question to Does The Environment Matter At All? rather than simply Should We Reduce CO2 Emissions?

Why are these issues, that should generate - it seems - a much wider consensus, so often set aside in favor of talking about climate change?

Is it simply a reflection of the issues the media have decided to talk about or ignore? In other words, is it simply a situation aptly described by the Allegory of the cave?